Special Constable on the phone at time of collision
Discussion
XDA said:
vonhosen said:
XDA said:
vonhosen said:
XDA said:
singlecoil said:
Dibble said:
La Liga said:
I don't think Dibble is saying that based on what the CI's are saying that there should have been a charge, just that opinion from expert witnesses is admissible in court and has weight.
Thanks, that was the point I was trying to make - expert witnesses don't just have to state facts, they can give evidence of opinion (related to their area of expertise). What he was expressing opinion on was not strong & as such is easily trumped. It has to be shown that the phone use did actually result in the standard of her driving falling below the standard expected. His opinion doesn't do that. Witness testimony states that she did everything expected of her & his testimony does nothing to undermine that.
XDA said:
An opinion from an expert witness, who's word could be used in court. You dismissed it as just an opinion.
Who did you mean then? The hat doesn't fit perfectly, it's for a much bigger head. Presumably yours.
You have relied heavily on his opinion throughout this thread. To me it sounded like someone who wasn't there, and who had an attitiude towards the driver, aaying what he thought in public but not in court, IOW he wasn't under oath and could grind his axe anyway he liked. Who did you mean then? The hat doesn't fit perfectly, it's for a much bigger head. Presumably yours.
I put much more weight on what was said by the two independent witnesses who were there.
vonhosen said:
That doesn't mean he can give opinion on everything to do with an accident just because he is an AI. There are limitations to what the court will allow.
What he was expressing opinion on was not strong & as such is easily trumped. It has to be shown that the phone use did actually result in the standard of her driving falling below the standard expected. His opinion doesn't do that. Witness testimony states that she did everything expected of her & his testimony does nothing to undermine that.
I find it quite odd that he expressed his opinion in the way he did , although we all make mistakes, for someone in his position I'd expect a little better.What he was expressing opinion on was not strong & as such is easily trumped. It has to be shown that the phone use did actually result in the standard of her driving falling below the standard expected. His opinion doesn't do that. Witness testimony states that she did everything expected of her & his testimony does nothing to undermine that.
He gave "false hope" to the relatives, (false hope of someone other than their dead relative being largely responsible for the accident), and his opinion has also led to the demonisation of the young lady driving the car, as can be seen by opinions on this thread.
She was stupid by fibbing, repeatedly, but I'm unsure from what has been reported of the witness statements, which he must have been aware of, why he was so forthright with his opinion, when all the evidence available to him suggested otherwise.
Nigel Worc's said:
She was stupid by fibbing, repeatedly, but I'm unsure from what has been reported of the witness statements, which he must have been aware of, why he was so forthright with his opinion, when all the evidence available to him suggested otherwise.
This is a very pertinent question."But accident investigator PC John Hayward said: “The use of her mobile phone can only have been a distraction and has very likely contributed to her not seeing the motorcyclist.”
Strong stuff, and it suggests that he thinks she would have seen the motorcyclists had she not been talking on the phone and implies that had she seen him, the crash would not have happened.
However, the 'contributed' word suggests that there were other reasons why she didn't see him as well, and maybe one of those was that he was overtaking two cars and a van, which we know were driving at near the speed limit, so to overtake three vehicles he would need to have been going quite a bit faster than they were.
De mortuis nil nisi bonum?
http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/10266791.Dorset_P...
http://www.visordown.com/motorcycle-news--general-...
It can't be just me that's wondering if the mobile phone records have been looked at? If it was a long call wouldn't there have been 'hand over' between different base stations as she drove along?
There must be data there on who initiated the call, time the call started and the duration?
I'm police bashing?
Or it relates to:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-ord...
I've also stated on other threads that accidents invariably have multiple factors and how in the last century more was made of the dangers junctions present rather than speed.
http://www.visordown.com/motorcycle-news--general-...
It can't be just me that's wondering if the mobile phone records have been looked at? If it was a long call wouldn't there have been 'hand over' between different base stations as she drove along?
There must be data there on who initiated the call, time the call started and the duration?
I'm police bashing?
Or it relates to:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-ord...
I've also stated on other threads that accidents invariably have multiple factors and how in the last century more was made of the dangers junctions present rather than speed.
It's extremely likely the records would have been looked at.
Nearly every officer who resigns doesn't try to re-apply. Why waste the time and money going through an irrelevant internal procedure?
The register of second jobs is complete b
ks. I expect that'll be curtailed.
We all expect the same standard applied to us, why not to others?
carinaman said:
I see it's reported that a solicitor who was looking to assist with a private prosecution has also concluded there wasn't sufficient evidence. carinaman said:
May need to tweak her suggestions a little. Simply saying anyone who resigns before internal matters are concluded cannot join the police again is enough to prevent a Harwood situation occurring again. Nearly every officer who resigns doesn't try to re-apply. Why waste the time and money going through an irrelevant internal procedure?
The register of second jobs is complete b
ks. I expect that'll be curtailed. carinaman said:
The PCC has no business meeting with the CPS. The emotive stuff is wholly irrelevant. What matters are objective tests to establish whether or not there is sufficient evidence to bring someone to court. We all expect the same standard applied to us, why not to others?
singlecoil said:
Maybe. There's really nothing new about the accident itself in the links, so it does look a bit like an attempt to restart a thread for no particular reason.
If the mobile phone records don't incriminate her, duration, time of start, how many base station hand overs there were during the call then perhaps we could have been told, informed of them?Mentioning such data in the press in relation to this accident may help in the education of drivers, may help them think before using their mobile phone while driving?
Multi-pronged attacks, stuff in newspapers saying mobile phone call data can be used as evidence in the event of an accident along with signs warning about mobile phone usage on lamp posts?
Edited by carinaman on Wednesday 8th May 12:01
carinaman said:
singlecoil said:
Maybe. There's really nothing new about the accident itself in the links, so it does look a bit like an attempt to restart a thread for no particular reason.
If the mobile phone records don't incriminate her, duration, time of start, how many base station hand overs there were during the call then perhaps we could have been told, informed of them?Mentioning such data in the press in relation to this accident may help in the education of drivers think before using their mobile phone while driving?
Multi-pronged attacks, stuff in newspapers saying mobile phone call data can be used as evidence in the event of an accident along with signs warning about mobile phone usage on lamp posts?
I will also remind you that the witnesses have confirmed that there was nothing incorrect about her driving, she pulled out into an adequate gap, and had the biker not been overtaking the line of traffic at that junction, the accident would not have happened.
You can't see any benefit in adding the 2 new links of stuff that had happened since then?
To inform people that had read and contributed to it that two other things had happened in the real world, firstly Martyn Underhill saying he'd look at it, along with his involvement in the Sara Payne case, saying at Weeting his phone was 'hacked' though the information could have come from the Payne's mobile phone and him suggesting 1% sponsorship of the police, and secondly the Private Prosecution being dropped?
Not worth mentioning for the sake of completeness?
May and the IPCC changes so officers can't avoid prosecution, or discipline? There's also another way to look at that too.
To inform people that had read and contributed to it that two other things had happened in the real world, firstly Martyn Underhill saying he'd look at it, along with his involvement in the Sara Payne case, saying at Weeting his phone was 'hacked' though the information could have come from the Payne's mobile phone and him suggesting 1% sponsorship of the police, and secondly the Private Prosecution being dropped?
Not worth mentioning for the sake of completeness?
May and the IPCC changes so officers can't avoid prosecution, or discipline? There's also another way to look at that too.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff